bulldg4life:drewogatory: That's not true,the vast majority of gun owners are quite reasonable. Unfortunately, a by product of being reasonable is we don't shout loud enough to be heard over the derp.

Perhaps you should. You know, the moderate muslims in the world get blasted for not doing the same thing. Same with the Christians, the atheists, and every other group.

At some point, the reasonable gun owners should be able to see that there is an issue that needs to be resolved. Not shouting loud enough to be heard over the derp doesn't help anything.

Reasonable gun owners do, they do this at the ballot box, which is why unless a politician is completely secure in their seat (Pelosi for instance), they won't bring up gun control because they know its political suicide to do so, even Carville admits that this is why gun control is dying as a political issue. Its as if you said "A drunk guy did something bad, so I propose we have a vote on whether or not we should take all of your alcohol away." (sound familiar) Group punishment doesn't work at all on a democracy and doesn't work for long on a representative democracy.

thisisarepeat:Reasonable gun owners do, they do this at the ballot box, which is why unless a politician is completely secure in their seat (Pelosi for instance), they won't bring up gun control because they know its political suicide to do so

This would imply that gun owners are not reasonable since they lash out at anyone that discusses gun control.

We could stop this stuff in a heartbeat if we changed our stance from shouting for bed wetting fear laws to protect us and instead changed our response to how we handle these people afterward.

Take the Dark Knight shootings. How about every Monday night at 9PM Pacific we have a new reality show called Crying Young Man Gets Ass Raped by a Clown With a Two Foot Strapon. We do that every Monday for a year. At the end of the year we take him up in a helicopter over a large parking lot and film while we give him two options. Jump or next year will be known as the Gang Bang Season.

The kid from yesterday? Pump him full of lantern fuel, dress him up in a nice suit, make him look all calm and peaceful. As your are filming his funeral have somebody light him on fire and lower the casket. Lower him down and have a dump truck full of raw sewage put out the flames and fill the grave. Lower the concrete lid and cover with dirt. His tombstone reads, "Here lies some guy we buried in a sarcophagus of shiat."

A couple of more examples like these and I bet mass murder becomes a thingof the past.

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

untaken_name:mittromneysdog: Solaris: Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.

Hey, great argument. People also use tools other than nuclear bombs to kill others. Therefore, there's no good reason to restrict private ownership of nuclear bombs.

Well, anyone who can afford one can get one anyway. What's the practical benefit of restricting ownership of things that only governments can afford?

Several Soviet nuclear weapons have gone missing since the end of the Cold War. I don't know if they were ever located. I do know that it was a major fear that one of those missing nuclear weapons would finds its way into the hands of a terrorist organization, which would then use it. I'd like to be able to punish anyone who obtains a nuclear bomb, whether or not we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt their intent to use it... unlawfully.

In any event, I've read at least one estimate that put the cost of crafting a crude nuclear weapons that might not function properly at around $100,000. Can't say whether or not that's realistic. I am saying that it's a good idea to have a statute on the books just in case.

I know nothing about this instance, didn't even read the article, but my guess is this guy heard about yesterday's shooting , thought he wanted to defend himself by carrying his gun with him everywhere he went, he went to a hospital where guns aren't permitted. They told him to leave, he didn't, they called cops on him, gets into confrontation with cops, he draws, bam bam couple people dead.

Pichu0102:drewogatory: Pichu0102: Time to reset the countdown on the "when it's okay to talk about gun control" clock.

Homicide is only the 15th leading cause of death in the US and gun violence is just a subset of that. It makes far more sense and you would save far more lives if you allocated resources based on the overall numbers and not squander them on a small fraction of preventable deaths because gun deaths are more sensationalistic.

So let's not do anything about guns because they aren't the number 1 killer.

Can none of you people read? "allocate resources based on the overall numbers". Why commit a disproportionate amount of finite resources toward solving a very small percentage of the overall issue of preventable deaths?

Dimensio:Waxing_Chewbacca: On Wednesday Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen. On Thursday he did this.[names removed]

Have you any other emotional appeals to offer, or have you any actual logical arguments to present?

I get a little tired of the "law abiding citizen" crap. I have followed your posts. You sound like many of my friends who are gun owners; smart and reasonable. We disagree on aspects of the question at hand. However, as you yourself have stated I believe, there are those on your side with a far right wing agenda and who have, in this very thread as in countless other instances, shown a callous disregard for the lives lost. I posted this to remind them... These were largely children.

occamswrist:I know nothing about this instance, didn't even read the article, but my guess is this guy heard about yesterday's shooting , thought he wanted to defend himself by carrying his gun with him everywhere he went, he went to a hospital where guns aren't permitted. They told him to leave, he didn't, they called cops on him, gets into confrontation with cops, he draws, bam bam couple people dead.

mittromneysdog:untaken_name: mittromneysdog: Solaris: Because guns are the only tool these people use to kill others.

Hey, great argument. People also use tools other than nuclear bombs to kill others. Therefore, there's no good reason to restrict private ownership of nuclear bombs.

Well, anyone who can afford one can get one anyway. What's the practical benefit of restricting ownership of things that only governments can afford?

Several Soviet nuclear weapons have gone missing since the end of the Cold War. I don't know if they were ever located. I do know that it was a major fear that one of those missing nuclear weapons would finds its way into the hands of a terrorist organization, which would then use it. I'd like to be able to punish anyone who obtains a nuclear bomb, whether or not we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt their intent to use it... unlawfully.

In any event, I've read at least one estimate that put the cost of crafting a crude nuclear weapons that might not function properly at around $100,000. Can't say whether or not that's realistic. I am saying that it's a good idea to have a statute on the books just in case.

Because a person willing to use a nuclear weapon on the public would obviously be deterred by a law prohibiting such action.

"I was going to blow up this city, but since that is illegal now, I'll just help this old lady cross the road"

mittromneysdog:Gyrfalcon: Bears repeating. But nobody wants to talk about the idea that maybe the NEWS MEDIA is helping these freaks by endlessly rehashing their exploits and that maybe one way to slow them down would be to not make them the #1 topic for three days after each incident.

Are you seriously suggesting a media blackout on these types of incidents? We're ALL hungry for information about what happened, because it is directly relevant to certain perpetual cultural debates. I mean, if you really think about it, that you are posting in this thread contributes to exactly the sort of infamy you argue motivates some of these killers.

If you want a media blackout on this kind of stuff, it can happen. But you have to stop consuming media when it reports it. And you have to stop discussing the issue too, because that gives rise to more demand for the media that reports it. I just don't think what you're suggesting here is realistic.

*Sigh* Overreact much? Where exactly did I ask for a media blackout? Or where did Ebert ask for one?

I think what I said was they needed to tone it down. What I said was--and what I said two or three other times in this and the other threads--that it just might be counterproductive in terms of preventing these incidents for the media to do what we saw happen this time, and the last time, and the time before that: Every news channel, giving us hours and hours of live news streaming, continual "updates" of nothing but talking heads spewing useless theories about the killer's motives, upbringing, past history, home life; interviews with traumatized victims, survivors, passersby, friends of friends; cutaways to new "live shots" of whatever the cameraman has his Steadicam pointed at...And it goes on for days! And then, as we're seeing today, every gun incident where more than two shots are fired, is tagged as "eerily similar" or "possibly related", no matter whether it is or not, ramping up the fear, and making it that much more likely that some disgruntled loner or edgy mental case will do the same thing.

OF COURSE the media should report what they know. But they should NOT be giving us a 24-hour cycle of speculation, rehashing, theorizing, moralizing, comparison and tenuously related garbage, just because they want ratings. Knowing what happened is important. Knowing that the shooter's friends played "Mass Effect" with him last night and he seemed distracted is not. An on-the-spot interview with a crying child is not necessary to our understanding of the event, it's just emotional porn. I already don't watch that crap. Nobody should.

Dimensio:Have you any other emotional appeals to offer, or have you any actual logical arguments to present?

You're a smart guy and a valuable poster, but you're attempting to argue logic in an illogical situation. Logic dictates you don't use your Second Amendment rights to wipe out two elementary school classrooms.

At some point we have to balance out our right to bear arms with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of not becoming a headline courtesy of a well-armed mentally unstable individual.

Waxing_Chewbacca:owever, as you yourself have stated I believe, there are those on your side with a far right wing agenda and who have, in this very thread as in countless other instances, shown a callous disregard for the lives lost.

Odd how people (not you, at least not in the post I am quoting) who are offended by the current erosion of the Fourth Amendment flippantly propose new laws that will take omniscience and/or significantly broader police powers to enforce effectively.

cameroncrazy1984:Dancin_In_Anson: ToxicMunkee: Arm all the doctors and nurses, stat!

Funny you say that as the gunman attacked a place where he wasn't the only armed person and look how it turned out.

Yeah, funny how it was a policeman who took him out, not some dumbass civilian.

...from the report as it stands now, it looks like it was the police who provoked the guy into shooting in the first place. So not only were guns not a deterrent, the mere sight of a person with a gun actually caused the shooting in the first place. So, the gun nuts can say "Well, this is 25 less casualties because of someone else with a gun"...while I say this is three more casualties because of someone with a gun. If this guy were as crazy as the Newtown shooter, there would've been plenty of deaths before the police even got there, with the probability that they wouldn't have been able to do anything.

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

The Face Of Oblivion:Waxing_Chewbacca: owever, as you yourself have stated I believe, there are those on your side with a far right wing agenda and who have, in this very thread as in countless other instances, shown a callous disregard for the lives lost.

Odd how people (not you, at least not in the post I am quoting) who are offended by the current erosion of the Fourth Amendment flippantly propose new laws that will take omniscience and/or significantly broader police powers to enforce effectively.

Solaris:You miss the argument entirely. Banning a specific method of murder is fruitless when there are infinite ways these monsters can accomplish their goal.

Nope. I was directly on point for that argument. What you say works just as well to argue against restricting private ownership of nuclear weapons. After all, there are infinite other ways monsters can kill. So why bother banning this one specific method of murder?

The problem isn't that I missed the argument. The problem is that the argument is nonsense.Why is the argument on what these people use to do this?

Because there's a reason shooters like this use guns, but rarely if ever have any used grenades. That's because guns are readily available even to unsophisticated seekers, because we have nothing in the way of sensible gun control in this country. But we do have effective grenade control. While I've no doubt someone could acquire a grenade if they were sufficiently dedicated, sophisticated, and had the right resources, the fact is, they're a lot harder to get ahold of, and so rarely used in crime. Certainly the Wen Ho Lees and Adam Lanzas of the world haven't been able to get their hands on them.

Why is it not on what we could have done to stop this person from doing this rather than HOW this person did this?

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Chinese slasher didn't actually manage to kill any kids. How much better off would we be today had our headline read "man slashes 20 kids, causing several to require bandages." How much happier would their parents be?

Solaris:You miss the argument entirely. Banning a specific method of murder is fruitless when there are infinite ways these monsters can accomplish their goal.

When someone successfully kills 26 people in one go with a pocketknife, machete, or Ford Expedition, I'm sure we'll start worrying about those. Until then, for some reason, when these guys snap they usually go for high-capacity firearms. Beats me why they didn't use the machete.

And yes, I heard about what happened in China. I'll re-emphasize 'kill' and not 'injure'.

mittromneysdog:Several Soviet nuclear weapons have gone missing since the end of the Cold War. I don't know if they were ever located. I do know that it was a major fear that one of those missing nuclear weapons would finds its way into the hands of a terrorist organization, which would then use it. I'd like to be able to punish anyone who obtains a nuclear bomb, whether or not we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt their intent to use it... unlawfully.

In any event, I've read at least one estimate that put the cost of crafting a crude nuclear weapons that might not function properly at around $100,000. Can't say whether or not that's realistic. I am saying that it's a good idea to have a statute on the books just in case.

And I'm saying that it's totally useless to do so, because, again, anyone with the money to purchase a black-market nuclear device will do so regardless of the legal status. And the vast majority of the people, who can't afford one, can't afford one whether it's legal or not. It's pointless, does absolutely nothing to protect anyone, and only makes the ignorant feel better. I don't think pointless laws which can't be reliably enforced should be put on the books. It's a waste of time. Do you seriously believe that anyone who wants a nuclear device to use for nefarious purposes will be stopped by the illegality of the act? They're already planning to mass murder people using a bomb, but they won't if it's not legal? What?

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face:At some point we have to balance out our right to bear arms with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of not becoming a headline courtesy of a well-armed mentally unstable individual.

If you have a way to do that, I'd like to hear it. "Gun control" is a political football aimed at (1) reigning in thug shiathead types without meaningful policing/sentencing reform and (2) getting one over at those on the conservative side of the culture wars. Mental illness is ALL ABOUT not responding correctly to incentives. In your words,

Logic dictates you don't use your Second Amendment rights to wipe out two elementary school classrooms.

Secondly, regulating guns doesn't work against the aforementioned thug shiatheads. They ARE responsive to incentives, but have demonstrated amply to date that the lure of being street famous / making money illicitly is not outweighed by the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Dimensio:occamswrist: I know nothing about this instance, didn't even read the article, but my guess is this guy heard about yesterday's shooting , thought he wanted to defend himself by carrying his gun with him everywhere he went, he went to a hospital where guns aren't permitted. They told him to leave, he didn't, they called cops on him, gets into confrontation with cops, he draws, bam bam couple people dead.

And we're making great strides in making the roads and cars safer for people to drive in: Roll bars, safety ratings, increased enforcement of DWI, etc. When Ralph Nader threw up a red flag on the Corvair, we didn't tell him to STFU and buy more Corvairs.

Now how do you plan on making strides in making our schools, malls, and movie theaters safe from mass murderers?

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face:Dimensio: Have you any other emotional appeals to offer, or have you any actual logical arguments to present?

You're a smart guy and a valuable poster, but you're attempting to argue logic in an illogical situation. Logic dictates you don't use your Second Amendment rights to wipe out two elementary school classrooms.

At some point we have to balance out our right to bear arms with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of not becoming a headline courtesy of a well-armed mentally unstable individual.

Emotional appeals are not a valid response to irrational behaviour. An emotional appeal provides no meaningful data regarding the motive of the shooter, whether symptoms of his mental instability were detectable prior to his actions or the means by which he obtained access to firearms that should have been properly secured against individuals known to have been "troubled", as he was.

At approximately 4:00 a.m., officers from the South Precinct responded to the incident location to investigate a report of a person with a gun. Upon arrival, officers located the suspect on the 5th floor hallway. As officers approached, the suspect began firing a handgun at the officers, striking one officer and two members of the hospital staff. An assisting Birmingham Police officer returned gunfire fatally wounding the suspect. Due to the circumstances at the scene, the victims were transported to a neighboring hospital for treatment. The three victims' injuries are not life threatening.

-----------------------------

This was not a mass shooting. This was a dude walking into the hospital with a gun on him, someone saw it, and the cops gunned him down in the hospital.

How is that a mass shooting?

It wasn't. We're on Day Two of Post-Shooting Media Frenzy. You can expect that any shooting incident in which more than two rounds (total) are expended will be labeled a "mass shooting" by the media, and eagerly trumpeted as such by every breathless news anchor and talking head within earshot.

But remember: The mass media is TOTALLY not responsible for any mass shooting event. It's only a) evil guns or b) evil crazy people. The media has nothing to do with it.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face:Solaris: You miss the argument entirely. Banning a specific method of murder is fruitless when there are infinite ways these monsters can accomplish their goal.

When someone successfully kills 26 people in one go with a pocketknife, machete, or Ford Expedition, I'm sure we'll start worrying about those. Until then, for some reason, when these guys snap they usually go for high-capacity firearms. Beats me why they didn't use the machete.

And yes, I heard about what happened in China. I'll re-emphasize 'kill' and not 'injure'.

Uh, ok. How about a million people? That enough machete-hacked corpses for you?

Private_Citizen:I propose that if a box of 9mm was suddenly $70, you wouldn't find too many of them just laying around in people's houses waiting to be stolen. Make something expensive enough, and they won't be as common. I really do believe it would reduce gun violence in the long run - without reducing gun ownership itself.

You know what the gun nuts would say to any proposal at any government level that would make bullets absurdly expensive? The same thing they've been saying to any other proposal that would attempt to fix the problem.

And do we really think that private manufacturers and sellers would raise their prices out of the goodness of their hearts, in light of the tragedies we've faced? Hell, no. They're trying to run a business, here. A few kids died in Connecticut? Make more bullets! Sell more bullets! We've got a profit margin to maintain!

untaken_name:Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Solaris: You miss the argument entirely. Banning a specific method of murder is fruitless when there are infinite ways these monsters can accomplish their goal.

When someone successfully kills 26 people in one go with a pocketknife, machete, or Ford Expedition, I'm sure we'll start worrying about those. Until then, for some reason, when these guys snap they usually go for high-capacity firearms. Beats me why they didn't use the machete.

And yes, I heard about what happened in China. I'll re-emphasize 'kill' and not 'injure'.

Uh, ok. How about a million people? That enough machete-hacked corpses for you?

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face:Solaris: You miss the argument entirely. Banning a specific method of murder is fruitless when there are infinite ways these monsters can accomplish their goal.

When someone successfully kills 26 people in one go with a pocketknife, machete, or Ford Expedition, I'm sure we'll start worrying about those. Until then, for some reason, when these guys snap they usually go for high-capacity firearms. Beats me why they didn't use the machete.

And yes, I heard about what happened in China. I'll re-emphasize 'kill' and not 'injure'.

If I wanted to kill a lot of people and, pretending for a second that laws against guns will magically stop me from getting guns (like the laws against drugs stop people from getting those), I'd make bombs.

If you look at the actual death counts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings) you'll see that people regularly kill more than 26 people. In fact, you could argue that having guns available reduces the death count since the number killed or wounded in a shooting is typically smaller than a bombing.

Tellingthem:Yep. I'm actually a bit surprised by the recent embrace of guns by some of my more liberal friends. Always interesting to be talking about going to the range with a wal-mart hating, whole foods loving, organic buying, vegan hippie. Luckily i can shoot better than them so far...

It's really not even recent. Most American liberals' argument about gun laws wasn't about banning them outright, but to restrict certain types that are clearly of no use but for mowing down many objects in the shortest amount of time - something I doubt even our esteemed Founding Fathers would have approved of. They're certainly not meant to cull the deer population.

I honestly have no dog in this fight, as I'm terribly conflicted by it and can't get off the fence. But I do know know this - you're not getting my handgun. I do not belong to the NRA and may be second only to GAT in terms of libtardiness. But as I read it, 'regular' guns are completely protected... unequivocally...under the law of the land and as it was written at the time. We've taken a pliable stance regarding our rights before. It's not a static document. Last time I checked you weren't allowed to park an Apache helicopter in your front yard, so why the confusion over weapons that are designed only for malicious harm?

OTOH, I can't just pick and choose the parts of the BOR that I personally like. Doing that would make me a Republican. It's a touchy and extremely difficult issue marked both by respect of the document and the desire to see these weapons at least heavily restricted. Then there's the whole "if 'assault' weapons are banned, only criminals will have 'assault' weapons." There is merit to this as well.

Dimensio:Emotional appeals are not a valid response to irrational behaviour. An emotional appeal provides no meaningful data regarding the motive of the shooter, whether symptoms of his mental instability were detectable prior to his actions or the means by which he obtained access to firearms that should have been properly secured against individuals known to have been "troubled", as he was.

I'll hold off on the motive of the shooter 'til we get more information. As for symptoms and access to firearms, if he did raid his mom's gun stash then you've a major problem of balancing the mother's rights versus the son's rights versus the state and the populace's rights. Having someone that unstable close to that many guns is a bad idea, but at the same rate I'm queasy about potential forced psychological examinations and institutionalization.

And we're making great strides in making the roads and cars safer for people to drive in: Roll bars, safety ratings, increased enforcement of DWI, etc. When Ralph Nader threw up a red flag on the Corvair, we didn't tell him to STFU and buy more Corvairs.

Now how do you plan on making strides in making our schools, malls, and movie theaters safe from mass murderers?

Every idea I come up with won't work with the only variances between them is to what extent the idea causes innocents to die and speediness to armed insurrection.

John Dewey:NotoriousFire: Second amendment already justifies a gun owners "need" to own. You need to justify your point - the US Bill of Rights justifies against your point.

The Bill of Rights justified owning a musket.

Well, more to the point:

At the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, law enforcement as we presently know it did not exist yet and the United States was constitutionally prohibited from having a standing army in peacetime--so quite often the closest thing that existed to a "national guard" or even a "police department" pretty much consisted of mayors getting together folks who were good with guns and teaching them how to actually operate as a city defense force (this is where the whole "well regulated militia" comes in, as well as the modern interpretation of this as both the National Guard and non-National Guard state defense forces like the Alaska Guard and Texas Rangers and similar setups in some other states).

Also, it should be noted that at the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, there were threats to American citizens that necessitated essentially a "city guard" or "county guard" that--by and large--do NOT exist nowadays...specifically, the threat of guerrilla warfare by both First Nations (many of whom had sided with the British due to broad treaty rights where the First Nations in question could keep their land, and later to prevent what they viewed as what would be termed nowadays as a full-on invasion by illegal aliens) and also British and French "irregulars", especially in frontier areas or in areas which were still the subject of legal dispute re the borders.

(Hell, in the case of some of my own ancestors--at least some DID sneak across the border into "Indian Country" before the US declared independence, and among some of my other ancestors there was a particular faction of the Cherokee Nation (the "Junaluska Faction") who flat out did not agree with treaties with the US or Britain, pretty much functionally declared themselves a "rump government" of the Nation, and waged war on settlers in Tennessee. We don't exactly have to worry about stuff like that NOW--closest thing we deal with re THAT sort of thing is in Afghanistan or Iraq, and it's not like we intend to actually INCORPORATE that into the US; even the Puerto Rico secessionist movement does seem to have died down in influence enough that there isn't a whole lot of secessionist-related terrorism like there was in the 60s and 70s.)

Frankly, it's pretty much already illegal for folks to own the sorts of things that would be the direct equivalent nowadays (namely, shiat like tanks and missiles and bunker-buster bombs and fighter jets) unless they're obsolete enough to be decommissioned; we also do have equivalents for city and county and state defense that didn't exist in 1787 and were really only starting to exist properly in 1861 (modern police departments and, later, the National Guard).

Now, even with all that--said it before, saying it again: I don't have a whole hell of a lot of a problem with folks owning even things like so-called "assault weapons" provided they get proper training in the safe use and storage of these weapons. At minimum this needs to be something like a junior hunter course or CCW safety course (as done in states that do actual testing for CCW permits) and I'd be inclined to say that for proper "munitions" type weapons one should have to have a course in weapons training equivalent to that which law enforcement or the military offers. (Big guns need big training.)

Mandatory training, of note, would (hopefully, anyways) keep weapons out of the hands of people who Really Should Not Have Firearm Access; the cocksmith who shot up the kindergarten actually did get blocked from trying to buy a weapon the day before the massacre, but unfortunately his mother seems to have not been trained in "Why we lock up weapons so that they may not be accessible by mentally disturbed people".

Dimensio:thisisarepeat: What the hell is wrong with you people? You mad? I can understand that, its upsetting. But when you start coming after my guns, I instantly quit giving a shiat if you live or die, leaning toward die. DIAF douche nozzles.

[www.patentspostgrant.com image 480x360]

Funny you should say DIAF. Most of the time, that's what happens when the government goes after gun nuts.